Tuesday, February 9, 2016

GMO labeling bill worthy of House consideration, approval

Call your representatives and tell them to pass this bill, especially if you have children. We all have a right to choose what to and what not to put in our diets and all food should carry labels to identify all ingredients natural or otherwise.

Sentinel Editorial

One of the truest
sayings we know is this: Knowledge is power. We’ve noted often, for
example, that would-be voters should take the time to learn what they
can about the candidates and issues before heading to the polls, and
that citizens deserve to know what government officials — elected and
appointed — are doing with public money and resources, the better to
make informed decisions about those entrusted with those resources. In
the same vein, we’ve railed against attempts by some lawmakers and
governors to trample scientific research or ban the mention of certain
subjects — such as climate change or evolution — they don’t support.And we believe
consumers deserve access to all relevant information about what they
buy, especially anything they put into their bodies.

Wednesday, the N.H. House will
take up HB 1674, which would require anyone producing or distributing
foods altered through the use of genetically modified organisms to label
those products as such. The bill takes great care to define what counts
as a genetically modified food and who is or isn’t responsible for
making sure those foods are labeled.

The bill is similar to those
passed in Vermont, Connecticut and Maine and proposed in Massachusetts
and Rhode Island. It does not, as critics charge, add to the cost of
labeling food products. It does not apply to restaurants and it exempts
farmers whose animals’ feed contains GMO or who are not also a retailer
or manufacturer. There are other exemptions intended to protect specific
areas — like alcohol or foods for medicinal use — and to keep a minimal
amount of GMO-related material from disrupting an entire product line.

As did a similar bill in 2014, HB
1674 comes to the House floor from the Environment and Agriculture
Committee, carrying a 12-7 recommendation of “inexpedient to legislate.”
That recommendation is based largely on the prospect of a lawsuit from
chemical and agricultural firms if it passes, and that enforcing the law
would cost the state money.

There would be a cost involved in
enforcing HB 1674, but it’s one we feel the state has an interest in
bearing. As for the idea of threatened or implied legal action, if
lawmakers are concerned about that, they ought never to make new law at
all.

Rep. John O’Connor, R-Derry,
writing for the majority, also cynically raises the idea that companies
are free to label their products as GMO-free if they want to capture
sales from concerned consumers. This is true, but the point here is to
assure consumers, not further confuse them. Consumers need to know that
if something might contain a substance they don’t want, it will be
clearly marked; not that it might be marked if the maker feels it has
something to gain by doing so.

The rationale for HB 1674 is
apparent in the first line from the first section: “New Hampshire
consumers have the right to know whether the foods they purchase were
produced with genetic engineering so they can make informed purchasing
decisions.”

Further, the bill notes:
“Manipulating genes via genetic engineering and inserting them into
organisms is an imprecise process. The results are not always
predictable or controllable.”

We believe HB 1674 is not only
completely expedient, but necessary, to legislate. The bottom line is
the science is still out on GMOs, despite claims to the contrary by
companies and trade organizations that profit from GMO sales. That
doesn’t mean they’re a danger, but neither does it mean they’re safe. In
the absence of conclusive evidence, consumers ought to have the ability
to choose for themselves whether to consume products made with GMOs.
And the only way to make that choice is to know for certain which
products those are.

No comments:

Welcome to our site

Please feel free to leave your comments or questions. We ask that you post responsibly, the use of foul language and any personal attacks will not be tolerated. If you have a town matter you'd like to discuss drop us an email and we will post the subject and open it for discussion for you.

WinchesterInformer@gmail.com

Disclaimer

This web site has no affiliation, in any official or unofficial capacity, with the Town of Winchester. Meeting times listed are for information only and do not constitute legal meeting notices. Comments are the opinions of the person(s) posting and not necessarily those of the WinchesterInformer. We reserve the right to edit or remove offensive comments.

Upcoming Meetings & Events ..

About Me

I am part of a group of Winchester citizens completely opposed to dirty and hazardous businesses, like asphalt and wood burning plants wanting to come into town at the expense of our quality of life. I am concerned about preserving the rural character of Winchester. These types of development have no benefits for Winchester citizens and they create many health hazards and will cause the destruction of green space. Our Winchester is known for its precious natural resources; dramatic rocky slopes, unique wetlands and abundant wildlife. I feel there are many questions concerning these proposed projects that outweigh any benefits. The increase in traffic along existing streets and noise and air pollution would be very significant. I am also concerned that the town infrastructure cannot cope with the problems these types of businesses will demand. Furthermore, I am very discouraged with the Planning Board and Zoning Boards and feel they have been negligent in their duties to protect neighboring residents from health hazards and safety issues that will surely arise and affect the lives and livelihoods of many citizens.